Who's lying now?

[he_who_is_nobody]

Despite the temptations to agree with you, I've been bum rushed by gish galloping creationists before, and it wasn't exactly "not a problem".

True enough, but to claim that he will get bum-rushed is the reason to not post a response here seems more like a cop-out. Equestions is making two claims: 1) AronRa lied about atheism being on the rise and 2) AronRa lied about atheists being less likely to commit crimes. All Equestions has to do is provide evidence to show that atheism is not on the rise and atheists are more likely to commit crimes. He does not have to address anyone else but AronRa on this thread and AronRa and Equestions only have to address those two points.

The only thing Equestions seems to have, is that AronRa used a chart for Australia when talking about the U.S. However, AronRa's claim does not seem to be based on that one chart and there are multiple sources (including Equestions' own source) that show atheism is on the rise. In addition, AronRa has already provided many sources about how atheists are less likely to commit crimes, whereas Equestions has only provided one. A good discussion could be about that one paper and how they were able to draw there conclusions when all the other research seems to point in the other direction.

 

[DepricatedZero]

2) AronRa lied about atheists being less likely to commit crimes. All Equestions has to do is provide evidence to show that atheism is not on the rise and atheists are more likely to commit crimes.

I'd say he has merit just by proving that atheists are simply as likely as anyone else, or if he can show that a/theism isn't a factor in commission of a crime.

 

[AronRa]

Question: is it possible to create a thread in which only AronRa and Equestions can post? Equestions is apparently petrified of getting "bum-rushed" by other atheists if he tries to bring his arguments onto these forums.

I would of course be glad to engage him in a one-on-one discussion, whether that is here or in a restricted venue. I think what is really happening is that he is (1) looking for excuses after having failed so miserably in his videos, and (2) the only way he can preserve his delusion is if he doesn't have to see everyone else pointing out the flaws in all his arguments.

 

[Gnug215]

I find it interesting how creationists will try to slander their opponents in the way we see here. Even if they mockingly call someone like AronRa a preacher, I think they really do consider him to be akin to an actual religious preacher, and the fans are akin to faithful followers.

I guess they must think that exposing someone as a false teacher exposes the teaching as false, or something like that. The amount of projection involved is astounding.

So here we are, talking about some creationist who seems to think he's made a devastating claim against one of the great teacher-preachers of evolution, AronRa, and what's his argument? That AronRa got some statistics wrong. Statistics about what? About the rise of atheism in the US and about crime levels according to religiosity.

And how does this pertain to the truth value of either atheism or theism?

Well... in no. frigging. finger-fornicating. way. At all.

So why are we having this discussion? Because theists think this matters so flipping much that they have basically forced it to pertain. They have created a new, non-valid argument to fight against, and while we perhaps should just have ignored it, I think it's fair to say that it was probably smarter of us to attack it, since it's another field of fail for theists.

This whole thing has basically gone into, well, meta bullshit.

*groan*

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I find it interesting how creationists will try to slander their opponents in the way we see here. Even if they mockingly call someone like AronRa a preacher, I think they really do consider him to be akin to an actual religious preacher, and the fans are akin to faithful followers.

I guess they must think that exposing someone as a false teacher exposes the teaching as false, or something like that. The amount of projection involved is astounding.

So here we are, talking about some creationist who seems to think he's made a devastating claim against one of the great teacher-preachers of evolution, AronRa, and what's his argument? That AronRa got some statistics wrong. Statistics about what? About the rise of atheism in the US and about crime levels according to religiosity.

And how does this pertain to the truth value of either atheism or theism?

Well... in no. frigging. finger-fornicating. way. At all.

So why are we having this discussion? Because theists think this matters so flipping much that they have basically forced it to pertain. They have created a new, non-valid argument to fight against, and while we perhaps should just have ignored it, I think it's fair to say that it was probably smarter of us to attack it, since it's another field of fail for theists.

This whole thing has basically gone into, well, meta bullshit.

*groan*

Well...

If you think about the Creationist mindset, in reference to Biblical inerrancy, it all makes sense. In their minds, the Bible is perfect in any way, and any slight flaw would show that the whole thing was unreliable. So by the same token the Creationist assholes think that if they can show a tiny flaw in AronRa's argument, it destroys all of his arguments even if they are confirmed by other sources. That's another bit of dishonesty, BTW.

It also plays into my earlier point about how Creationists expect their arguments to be discussed as though they are new each and every time they are mentioned by anyone, even if they have already had their points destroyed a hundred times before. If they show that AronRa is wrong once, they not only dismiss everything he says, but they can pretend that all of his points have been summarily debunked forever. If he gets a statistic wrong, it lets Creationists pretend that AraonRa has no credibility AND that all of evolution is permanently debunked because of one unrelated mistake.

 

[Gnug215]

blah blah blah

*groan*

Well...

If you think about the Creationist mindset, in reference to Biblical inerrancy, it all makes sense. In their minds, the Bible is perfect in any way, and any slight flaw would show that the whole thing was unreliable. So by the same token the Creationist assholes think that if they can show a tiny flaw in AronRa's argument, it destroys all of his arguments even if they are confirmed by other sources. That's another bit of dishonesty, BTW.

It also plays into my earlier point about how Creationists expect their arguments to be discussed as though they are new each and every time they are mentioned by anyone, even if they have already had their points destroyed a hundred times before. If they show that AronRa is wrong once, they not only dismiss everything he says, but they can pretend that all of his points have been summarily debunked forever. If he gets a statistic wrong, it lets Creationists pretend that AraonRa has no credibility AND that all of evolution is permanently debunked because of one unrelated mistake.

Exactly, and it's pathetic.

It really demonstrates what we're up against, though, and I think it actually serves as a kind of evidence against theism, because IF theism were actually true, then I think it's fair to say that one should expect a level of honesty and insight that one wouldn't expect to see from anything else.

Lying for Jesus shouldn't be needed if he were real.

 

[trancek]

Question: is it possible to create a thread in which only AronRa and Equestions can post? Equestions is apparently petrified of getting "bum-rushed" by other atheists if he tries to bring his arguments onto these forums.

I would of course be glad to engage him in a one-on-one discussion, whether that is here or in a restricted venue. I think what is really happening is that he is (1) looking for excuses after having failed so miserably in his videos, and (2) the only way he can preserve his delusion is if he doesn't have to see everyone else pointing out the flaws in all his arguments.

It's definitely looking that way now. Somebody put forward the suggestion of that 1v1 thread in Equestions's part 3 video, and also shot down his counter-proposals of having you drive all the way to a Phoenix church or making a video specifically to address his arguments. Equestions claimed that either of his two suggestions were "just as easy" as making posts here on this forum. :roll: Nevermind the hours of work it takes to illustrate your points in a video editor, or to drive to Arizona with gasoline and other expenses incurred.

He's probably going to end up being another NephilimFree, active in video responses and comments but never in any effective capacity. I actually do wish he'd prove me wrong by coming on here.

 

[tubbers]

This is all somewhat interesting.... equestions has two minor points (the graph was wrong and the claim about atheists being less criminal wasn't referenced). equestions agrees that atheism is rising (as AronRa says) and in part 3 agrees with one of the references AronRa gives about atheists being more moral. But still this somehow is meant to make AronRa a lying liar. :roll:

If I remember correctly the first time I read that atheists are under represented in jails was in the god delusion. I no longer have my copy, but unless my memory is failing me I'm sure there's a reference to it there (but Dawkins says something about the statistic could be unreliable because claiming that you're Christian washes well with parole boards, hence more prisoners may say they're Christian even if they aren't).

 

[AronRa]

Somebody put forward the suggestion of that 1v1 thread in Equestions's part 3 video, and also shot down his counter-proposals of having you drive all the way to a Phoenix church or making a video specifically to address his arguments.

Several of my oldest and dearest friends live in Phoenix. They're people I lived with back in my medieval Heavy Metal tattooing days. They're all big hairy bastards, and they're still some of the scariest people I've ever known, even the women! I would love to pull into a Phoenix church with my old bros in tow. It would look like a remake of the Road Warrior. Then there would be a big old barbecue bash afterward -like there was when I went through there in July. Too bad I can't ride back to Arizona right now.

 

[Laurens]

Somebody put forward the suggestion of that 1v1 thread in Equestions's part 3 video, and also shot down his counter-proposals of having you drive all the way to a Phoenix church or making a video specifically to address his arguments.

Several of my oldest and dearest friends live in Phoenix. They're people I lived with back in my medieval Heavy Metal tattooing days. They're all big hairy bastards, and they're still some of the scariest people I've ever known, even the women! I would love to pull into a Phoenix church with my old bros in tow. It would look like a remake of the Road Warrior. Then there would be a big old barbecue bash afterward -like there was when I went through there in July. Too bad I can't ride back to Arizona right now.

That would make an awesome video...

 

[godisabullet]

If I remember correctly the first time I read that atheists are under represented in jails was in the god delusion. I no longer have my copy, but unless my memory is failing me I'm sure there's a reference to it there (but Dawkins says something about the statistic could be unreliable because claiming that you're Christian washes well with parole boards, hence more prisoners may say they're Christian even if they aren't).

"It is often cynically said that there are no atheists in foxholes. I'm inclined to suspect (with some evidence, although it may be simplistic to draw conclusions from it) that there are very few atheists in prisons."

The God Delusion pp 261 - 262.

"Correlational evidence is never conclusive, but the following data, described by Sam Harris in his Letter to a Christian Nation, are nevertheless striking.

While political party affiliation in the United States is not a perfect indicator of religiosity, it is no secret that the 'red [Republican] states' are primarily red due to overwhelming political influence of conservative Christians. If there were a strong correlation between Christian conservatism and societal wealth, we might expect to see some sign of it in red-state America. We don't. Of the twenty-five cities with the lowest rates of violent crime, 62 percent are in 'blue' [Democrat] states, and 24 percent are in 'red' [Republican] states. Of the twenty-five most dangerous cities, 76 percent are in red states, and 24 percent are in blue states. In fact, three of the five most dangerous cities in the U.S. are in the pious state of Texas. The twelve states with the highest rates of burglary are red. Twenty-four of the twenty-nine states with the highest rates of theft are red. Of the twenty-two states with the highest rates of murder, seventeen are red.


"Systematic research if anything tends to support such data.Gregory S. Paul, in the Journal of Religion and Society (2005), systematically compared seventeen economically developed nations, and reached the devastating conclusion that 'higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlated with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.'"

The God Delusion pp 262 - 263.


I only did a quick check but that's what I found. Hope it helps

 

[AronRa]

Somebody put forward the suggestion of that 1v1 thread in Equestions's part 3 video, and also shot down his counter-proposals of having you drive all the way to a Phoenix church or making a video specifically to address his arguments.

I saw a bit of that in one of the response videos.



Rather than having a discussion that anyone else could easily follow, he says I should instead ride 1,000 miles to go his church -where he would still avoid the discussion he is avoiding now, and would instead expect me to assume his delusion and talk to myself while pretending to believe in his god. How insane is that? Apparently he thinks that dragging me into his asylum will make me as crazy as he is, but immersing me among emotionally-charged and irrational lunatics will not make me think they're reasonable. The only thing that could work are logical arguments and evidence which he could easily present here -if any of his beliefs were actually true. And he would do that -if he really thought they were true, but they're not -and he knows it.

So he puts up a smokescreen. He pretends that taking a week off to cross the desert to meet him only to still be denied any kind of logical or compelling reason -or means- to believe as he does -would be 'just as easy' for me to do as logging into this forum would be for him. He says that I'll call him a coward if he doesn't show up here, but that isn't true either. Judging by his dripping vitriol, he is all about hatred. So it is not fear that keeps him away, it is his own dishonesty.

I have only seen one of his three videos about me. In it he lied about the Urey-Miller experiment, about tiktaalik, and about the Piltdown hoax, and he constantly lies about my tactics, motivations, and alleged agendas. He even lied about me creating my own chart. When he is caught in these lies on his own threads, he just makes another video trying to spin it so that he doesn't have to admit he was wrong, and can still somehow pretend that I'm the liar. None of that would work here -where the format permits consistent review. He knows he can't defend his accusations, but he won't venture here because he also knows he can't address any of the challenges made in the first post of this thread. Here he knows that the all who read his posts in context will inevitably and invariably know that I have not lied about anything, but that he has lied about everything he alleges against me.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Equestions claims to believe what he says, but doesn't defend his beliefs in the honest and open way that people normally defend those beliefs. So Equestions won't have a 1-on-1 discussion on a message board where the claims and responses to them will be permanently recorded for everyone to see. Instead he makes demands that are either insane or simply arduous, like insisting that AronRa drive 1000+ miles to his church or spends hours on end making videos to refute his nonsense.

If you believe something it true, you stand behind it. If you care enough to argue and make videos, then you do the research to see if what you're saying actually makes sense. If you confront someone and you are interested in a discussion with them, you don't create artificially difficult restrictions on how you're willing to have the conversation.

Like the great sage and fountain of wisdom Judge Judy always says, "If it doesn't make sense, it isn't true!"

 

[Mithcoriel]

AronRa: You say that you don't have enough time to answer all the questions put to you. If you'd ask around, I'm sure many people (including me) would take up that task. After all, 99% of the questions will be the standard ones and your "secretary" could just relay the important ones to you then. Yeah, I have too much time on my hands. :lol:

I agree. ^^ Some smaller youtubers should just take on these little creationists, strip em of all the arguments that have been debunked 20 years ago, or who were debunked in previous videos, and save people like AronRa the time of pointing them to all their old videos. This should help any creationists interested in a serious debate improve their arguments, maybe making them better opponents. And it might get them a few more subscribers, make them more prominent and more worth debating. And in the process the skeptics can collect all the halfway useful arguments they make, the ones that we weren't able to debunk ourselves, and just hand over the pack of semi-almost-useful arguments to the expert youtubers afterwards.
I'd volunteer too. Only I haven't really started making videos yet. I was gonna do other stuff on youtube first.

I don't think you need to "manage his account for him" though, as you put it. You can just do it from your own account. I say the big youtubers, the "sharks", could use a few pilot fish. :lol:

 

[Inferno]

@Mithcoriel: The only problem with that is that more often that not you'll actually see that the creationists pay less "respect" to what you say than to for example AronRa. So while I agree with you (many people engage YT-creationists in debates already) I also think that it's less effective.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Some smaller youtubers should just take on these little creationists, strip em of all the arguments that have been debunked 20 years ago, or who were debunked in previous videos, and save people like AronRa the time of pointing them to all their old videos. This should help any creationists interested in a serious debate improve their arguments, maybe making them better opponents. And it might get them a few more subscribers, make them more prominent and more worth debating. And in the process the skeptics can collect all the halfway useful arguments they make, the ones that we weren't able to debunk ourselves, and just hand over the pack of semi-almost-useful arguments to the expert youtubers afterwards.

It's like economics - except it's trickling up!

 

[borrofburi]

@Mithcoriel: The only problem with that is that more often that not you'll actually see that the creationists pay less "respect" to what you say than to for example AronRa. So while I agree with you (many people engage YT-creationists in debates already) I also think that it's less effective.

The "respect" thing has to do with both their authoritarian thinking and the simple fact that their goal is to undermine the great powerful demon atheists, as they see it (and as such, dealing with one of the lesser demons just isn't worth it).

 

[mike0888]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZzCkKhPem4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qIcubiQvnE&feature=related


more bullshit slander for anyone interested in debunking Equestions, again.

I havent even watched them, I've grown tired of this lying ass.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Meh. Screw him. He's not even a very entertaining train wreck. If there's no lulz in it, there's not much point listening to a creationist.

 

[DiscipleTube1]

The video "How could creationism not be dishonest" that AronRa keeps citing was a response to my video "AronRa's Double Standard (part1)"
Since then I have made some concessions and posted a reply in "AronRa's Double Standard (part 2)"




Equestions may go too far when calling AronRa a liar... well when it comes to AronRa's own definition. But AronRa still fails to show how Behe intentionally intended to deceive in the Dover trial.
I tried my best when, making the part 2 video, to give AronRa the benefit of the doubt. I didn't call him a liar in it because I don't know whether his misrepresentation of Behe was INTENTIONAL or not.

So that being said, I would like to give AronRa the benefit of the doubt and ask him to respond to my claims in (part 2).